Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is related to an increased risk of extrahepatic malignancy (EHM), and antiviral treatment is associated with an incidence of EHM comparable to controls. We compared the risks of EHM and intrahepatic malignancy (IHM) between entecavir (ETV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) treatment. Methods: Using data from the National Health Insurance Service of Korea, this nationwide cohort study included treatment-naïve CHB patients who initiated ETV (n=24,287) or TDF (n=29,199) therapy between 2012 and 2014. The primary outcome was the development of any primary EHM. Secondary outcomes included overall IHM development. E-value was calculated to assess the robustness of results to unmeasured confounders. Results: The median follow-up duration was 5.9 years, and all baseline characteristics were well balanced after propensity score matching. EHM incidence rate differed significantly between within versus beyond 3 years in both groups (P<0.01, Davies test). During the first 3 years, EHM risk was comparable in the propensity score-matched cohort (5.88 versus 5.84/1,000 person-years; subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR]=1.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.88–1.17, P=0.84). After year 3, however, TDF was associated with a significantly lower EHM incidence compared to ETV (4.92 versus 6.91/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.70, 95% CI=0.60–0.81, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.21). Regarding IHM, the superiority of TDF over ETV was maintained both within (17.58 versus 20.19/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.88, 95% CI=0.81–0.95, P<0.01) and after year 3 (11.45 versus 16.20/1,000 person-years; SHR=0.68, 95% CI=0.62–0.75, P<0.01; E-value for SHR=2.30). Conclusions TDF was associated with approximately 30% lower risks of both EHM and IHM than ETV in CHB patients after 3 years of antiviral therapy.

Background: Hand hygiene is considered the simplest and most cost-effective method of infection prevention. Regular observation and feedback on hand hygiene compliance are key strategies for its enhancement. This study evaluated the effectiveness of hand hygiene surveillance, including direct observation and feedback, by comprehensively analyzing the reported hand hygiene compliance within the Korean National Healthcare-Associated Infections Surveillance System from 2019 to 2022. Methods: Participating medical institutions included general hospitals and hospitals with infection control departments that consented to participate. Hand hygiene surveillance was conducted using direct observation. Collected data, including healthcare workers, clinical areas, hand hygiene moments, and hand hygiene compliance, were recorded to calculate hand hygiene compliance rates. Additionally, the volume of alcohol-based hand sanitizers used per patient per day was investigated as an indirect indicator of hand hygiene compliance. The study was conducted from July 2019 to December 2022. Results: Hand hygiene compliance increased from 87.2% in Q3 2019 to 89.9% in 2022. Nurses and medical technologists showed the highest compliance rates, whereas doctors showed the lowest compliance rates. Intensive care units excelled in compliance, whereas emergency de partments lagged. Compliance was highest after patient contact and lowest when the patient’s surroundings were touched. Larger hospitals consumed more alcohol-based hand sanitizers than smaller hospitals did. Conclusion This study confirmed an improvement in hand hygiene compliance through sustained surveillance, indicating its contribution not only to preventing infection transfer within healthcare facilities but also to fostering a culture of hand hygiene in the country.

Purpose: This study aimed to describe the desperate situation where the clinician should make decisions to further manage patients having experienced adverse drug reaction (ADR) to lamotrigine that is indicated to not easily controlled neuropsychiatric diseases. Methods: A descriptive analysis was done by thoroughly reviewing medical records of patients who were reported to have ADR to lamotrigine in a regional drug-safety center between 2010 and 2018. Results: Eighty-four cases of lamotrigine-related ADRs occurred in 80 patients. Skin lesions were most commonly observed in 70 cases (83.3%) and 14 cases (16.7%) had severe ADRs. Sixty-three subjects (78.8%) discontinued lamotrigine, while 17 (21.3%) continued it.At the time of discontinuation, 30.0% were prescribed aromatic antiepileptic drugs. Among 4 subjects who were eventually prescribed lamotrigine again after a period of discontinuation, 3 (75.0%) experienced its recurrence. Among patients who had taken alternative medications, the incidence of ADRs was higher in those being prescribed aromatic antiepileptic drugs than in the others being prescribed other than aromatic antiepileptic drugs (P = 0.013). Regarding the control of underlying diseases, as many as 65 (86.7%) and 68 (90.7%) failed to reach maintaining the resolved state from 6 months and 12 months after the substitution, respectively. Conclusion Patients can be easily trapped between the recurrence of ADRs and the treatment failure to a certain drug like lamotrigine, in which we can hardly find a reasonable alternative to manage them.

Purpose: We evaluated the characteristics of CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein α (CEBPA) mutations and the significance of a basic leucine zipper in-frame mutation (bZIPin-f) of CEBPA in patients with acute myeloid leukemia with a normal karyotype. Materials and Methods: Based on updated knowledge of CEBPA mutations, we conducted next-generation sequencing analyses in a previously established real-world cohort. Results: Among 78 of a total of 395 patients (19.7%), 50 had bZIPin-f CEBPA, and 28 had non-bZIPin-f CEBPA. In the multivariate analysis, patients with NPM1mut, those with bZIPin-f CEBPA, and those who underwent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) had favorable overall survival (OS), but FLT3-ITDmut was a poor prognostic indicator. For relapse-free survival (RFS) and cumulative incidence of relapse, bZIPin-f CEBPA, and allo-HCT were associated with favorable outcomes; FLT3-ITDpos was associated with worse outcomes. In the CEBPA double-mutated group (CEBPAdm), bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with superior outcomes in terms of OS (p=0.007) and RFS (p=0.007) compared with non-bZIPin-f CEBPA. Of 50 patients with bZIPin-f CEBPA, 36 patients had at least one mutation. When grouped by the presence of mutations in chromatic/DNA modifiers (C), cohesion complex (C), and splicing genes (S) (CCS mutations), CCS-mutated bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with poor OS (p=0.044; hazard ratio [HR], 2.419) and a trend in inferior RFS (p=0.186; HR, 1.838). Conclusion Only bZIPin-f CEBPA was associated with favorable outcomes in patients with CEBPAdm. However, some mutations accompanying bZIPin-f CEBPA showed inferior OS; thus, further studies with larger numbers of patients are required for clear conclusions of the significance of bZIPin-f CEBPA.